Narrative:

Houston center and new orleans approach control have a letter of agreement mandating that ads-B helicopter aircraft file with a call sign ending with an a as the last digit in the call sign if ads-B equipped and operating in a radar environment. However; non ads-B aircraft would lack the a as the last digit and only operate in a non radar environment. I was assigned to the D79 radar associate position to help the R79 controller with weather and deviating traffic in R79/D79/R72/D72/R53/D53/R28/D28 combined airspace. Msya (new orleans approach) called me on the shout line and appreqed a helicopter aircraft with an a suffix 060. I advised them that this was an ads-B aircraft in a radar environment and questioned why they were calling me. The controller advised that anytime they did not open their lla sector they were operating in a non-radar environment so the aircraft would be non-radar due to lack of staffing....this is ATC zero not non radar!!! Houston center has no knowledge of msya sectors and whether they are open/combined or closed and houston center shows no outages! I advised the controller that I could not approve non-radar and would advise supervision. I approved 050 for the aircraft and advised R79 that the helicopter checking on our frequency over the llarc was non-radar without approval and needed to be radar identified! After opening R53; msya called back again and was trying to coordinate non-radar again due to lack of staffing and having a closed sector. When I returned from break; 2 supervisors had agreed to use non-radar procedures in a radar environment; there are no equipment problems and just a lack of staffing at msya; this violates the letter of agreement between houston center and new orleans approach; denies service to the customer during a line of severe thunderstorms when radar is needed; and adds to controller workload creating an unsafe situation and an airspace deviation. I feel that this is both dangerous and illegal! I suggested that washington be involved before we have an accident and the NTSB gets involved! Recommendation: 1. Staffing - msya must have staffing to open their sectors and/or declare and ATC alert/ATC zero through washington as mandated in our briefings and cbi's! Follow correct procedure and stop covering up! 2. Coordination - if there is an acceptable way that washington has approved to use non-radar in a radar environment then it must be coordinated correctly through washington; then the tmu (traffic management unit) and then the supervisors to the controllers. 3. NOTAM - the users must be provided a NOTAM so they know they cannot receive radar service especially during severe thunderstorms! 4. Notice or amendment to letter of agreement - procedures must be documented in the letter of agreement and airspace must be defined. There is absolutely no way for one facility to know another's facility's airspace or even what we are talking about or agreeing to without documentation and approval in the LOA.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZHU controller voiced concern regarding an alleged disregard to the existing LOA provisions outlining procedures to be used in a Non-RADAR situation; the reporter noting LOA provisions should not be altered based upon staffing shortages and not without formal LOA revisions.

Narrative: Houston Center and New Orleans Approach Control have a letter of agreement mandating that ADS-B helicopter aircraft file with a call sign ending with an A as the last digit in the call sign if ADS-B equipped and operating in a RADAR environment. However; Non ADS-B aircraft would lack the A as the last digit and only operate in a Non RADAR environment. I was assigned to the D79 RADAR associate position to help the R79 controller with weather and deviating traffic in R79/D79/R72/D72/R53/D53/R28/D28 combined airspace. MSYA (New Orleans Approach) called me on the shout line and APPREQED a helicopter aircraft with an A suffix 060. I advised them that this was an ADS-B aircraft in a RADAR environment and questioned why they were calling me. The Controller advised that anytime they did not open their LLA sector they were operating in a Non-RADAR environment so the aircraft would be Non-RADAR due to lack of staffing....THIS IS ATC ZERO not NON RADAR!!! Houston Center has no knowledge of MSYA sectors and whether they are open/combined or closed and Houston Center shows NO OUTAGES! I advised the Controller that I could not approve Non-RADAR and would advise Supervision. I approved 050 for the aircraft and advised R79 that the helicopter checking on our frequency over the LLARC was Non-RADAR without approval and needed to be RADAR Identified! After opening R53; MSYA called back again and was trying to coordinate Non-RADAR again due to lack of staffing and having a closed sector. When I returned from break; 2 Supervisors had agreed to use Non-RADAR procedures in a RADAR environment; there are no equipment problems and just a lack of staffing at MSYA; this violates the Letter Of Agreement between Houston Center and New Orleans Approach; denies service to the customer during a line of SEVERE THUNDERSTORMS when RADAR is needed; and adds to controller workload creating an unsafe situation and an Airspace Deviation. I feel that this is both dangerous and illegal! I suggested that Washington be involved before we have an ACCIDENT and the NTSB gets involved! Recommendation: 1. STAFFING - MSYA must have staffing to open their sectors and/or declare and ATC ALERT/ATC ZERO through Washington as MANDATED in our briefings and CBI's! FOLLOW CORRECT PROCEDURE AND STOP COVERING UP! 2. COORDINATION - If there is an acceptable way that Washington has approved to use Non-RADAR in a RADAR Environment then it must be coordinated correctly through Washington; then the TMU (Traffic Management Unit) and then the Supervisors to the Controllers. 3. NOTAM - The users must be provided a NOTAM so they know they cannot receive RADAR Service especially during SEVERE THUNDERSTORMS! 4. NOTICE or amendment to Letter Of Agreement - Procedures must be documented in the Letter Of Agreement and airspace must be defined. There is absolutely no way for one facility to know another's facility's airspace or even what we are talking about or agreeing to without documentation and approval in the LOA.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.